Modesty issues...again

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The whole problem with this line of thinking is it has no defined boundaries or borders. If we are trying not to arouse others, how far do we take it? What is reasonable? Do we just separate the sexes? What about our gay brothers and sisters? Should we wear makeup? Should we shower? If our goal is to not arouse others shouldn't we just gain 150 pounds? Try to make ourselves look old? It just becomes an impossible mess. 

Women in general are said to be attracted to masculinity, earning potential, alpha males. Should we eschew these things? Should men live impoverishedly to keep women from lusting after them?

And who is our brother and how often should we forgive people?

Are there defined boundaries for those goals??

How about "ALWAYS" being the answer for all of these?

And men are attracted to women who can physically appear to make lots of babies.  Lots of curves!!   Now you are really getting sexist!!

I mean if we want to get back to physical evolution and how the sexes pick each other you are in a whole different realm.

And if you want to go there we should NOT shower!  It destroys all those yummy pheromones !  I can't help it if societal norms have ruined our primitive drives if you want to affirm those.  Definitely not politically correct where you are going 

Edited August 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And who is our brother and how often should we forgive people?

Are there defined boundaries for those goals??

How about "ALWAYS" being the answer for all of these?

And men are attracted to women who can physically appear to make lots of babies.  Lots of curves!!   Now you are really getting sexist!!

I mean if we want to get back to physical evolution and how the sexes pick each other you are in a whole different realm.

So you favor burkas and divided sexes? I mean if you go to the extreme of nakedness, can't I go to the other extreme to make the same point? How much is enough?

[Rain]

Bsjkki - I truly appreciate you bringing this topic up despite how weird it has become. I'm glad things went well at the activity days and I'm glad you have the calling you do.  I don't find this thread a priority any more so I wish you well.

 

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The whole problem with this line of thinking is it has no defined boundaries or borders. If we are trying not to arouse others, how far do we take it? What is reasonable? Do we just separate the sexes? What about our gay brothers and sisters? Should we wear makeup? Should we shower? If our goal is to not arouse others shouldn't we just gain 150 pounds? Try to make ourselves look old? It just becomes an impossible mess. 

Women in general are said to be attracted to masculinity, earning potential, alpha males. Should we eschew these things? Should men live impoverishedly to keep women from lusting after them?

It's not an all-or-nothing proposal.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Okay. I guess I'm confused by you statement and what you meant, so sorry.

Who made this statement exactly? I haven't seen that here.

It seems like not arousing the opposite sex is an impossible standard. Given that not arousing the opposite sex is a non-starter, I think most people here advocate for teaching modesty from the stand point of respecting oneself and being aware of the message we communicate when we dress and act in certain ways.

So you too think that there is no difference between modesty and nakedness in being sexually arousing?

You are being black and white when the reality is between infinite shades of grey.

And then you give a great reason to BE modest while denying the difference between modesty and immodesty?   And you think I am confused?

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

It's not an all-or-nothing proposal.

Exactly

And then he/she gives a great reason for modesty.  Go figure.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you favor burkas and divided sexes? I mean if you go to the extreme of nakedness, can't I go to the other extreme to make the same point? How much is enough?

Huh?

Let's just stick to what was actually said- ok?  Plucking  words out of thin air does not enhance credibility.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

So you too think that there is no difference between modesty and nakedness in being sexually arousing?

Can you point to where I said that? And you think I'm reading challenged? 

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

You are being black and white when the reality is between infinite shades of grey.

I agree it's all shades of grey. That's the whole problem. If we are supposed to dress in a way not to arouse others, how do we even begin to define this? Which others? How?

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

And then you give a great reason to BE modest while denying the difference between modesty and immodesty?   And you think I am confused?

It's all in the messaging. I don't think a single person has said that modesty isn't important on this thread. Or that the church shouldn't teach modesty. What people have said is that teaching people to be modest in order to prevent arousal in others is an impossible standard and causes real damage to the women that receive this message.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

Let's just stick to what was actually said- ok?  Plucking  words out of thin air does not enhance credibility.

Says the person that keeps bring up nudity? Aren't you bringing up one extreme of immodesty to make a point? Aren't I bringing up the other end to make the opposite point? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's not an all-or-nothing proposal.

But if we are to dress as to not arouse others and we are responsible for the arousal we cause in others, how do we know when we have dressed modestly enough? Can you answer this question? If not I'd suggest re-evaluating your position. Again, I am not anti-modesty. I just think that teaching modesty from the standpoint of protecting others from arousal creates an impossible standard.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL!!

We seem to have a penchant for starting trouble. ....  look at our countryman Lech Walesa, Jan Sobieski, Karol Wojtyla, Kosciuszko, Brzezinski, Pulaski....

Ahhhhh....the Motherland. My son and his family are in Warszawa as we speak. Covet, covet, covet.

 

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly

And then he/she gives a great reason for modesty.  Go figure.

I think this division is caused by the fact that we cannot agree on a reason for modesty. It would go away if we had a consensus on why it is important.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But if we are to dress as to not arouse others and we are responsible for the arousal we cause in others, how do we know when we have dressed modestly enough? Can you answer this question? If not I'd suggest re-evaluating your position. Again, I am not anti-modesty. I just think that teaching modesty from the standpoint of protecting others from arousal creates an impossible standard.

Then you made my position for me.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ahhhhh....the Motherland. My son and his family are in Warszawa as we speak. Covet, covet, covet.

 

Beautiful country, wonderful, freedom loving people.  I was in the Tatras mountains a few years ago- and they make Switzerland look like the Appalachians

"Poland is not yet lost.... "

http://www.rontravel.com/travel_photo_pages/pictures_eastern_europe_happy_cannibal.htm

Edited August 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then you made my position for me.

So your position is that we should never teach modesty as a way to prevent arousal in the opposite sex? Awesome!

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Should we shower? If our goal is to not arouse others shouldn't we just gain 150 pounds?

The very last job I performed before I left America was teaching at a tribal charter school on a remote and impoverished Native American reservation. The 'school' was actually just a collection of spaces that had been set off by portable dividers at the back of a machine shop. Packs of feral dogs would wander in and out of these 'classrooms' during the day, and it was common for a local woman to just walk into class with a trolley of tamales and start selling them in the middle of a lesson.

Fully one-third of our students there had experienced documented sexual assault, mostly (though not exclusively) the girls. Many of our female students refused to shower or wear make-up, and they dressed in baggy track suits and purposely gained weight specifically so that they would be less attractive targets to the undisciplined uncles/cousins/brothers they shared overcrowded homes with.

I still cannot fathom the horror of this situation, but I did my level best to help these students -- even when my olfactory senses were in full revolt as I did so.

If we want to talk about logical extremes, this is a real-world example -- and one I've never been able to adequately deal with.

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So your position is that we should never teach modesty as a way to prevent arousal in the opposite sex? Awesome!

No, that is your mis-characterization of my position. 

EDIT.

Sorry. That was a bit short.

I believe there is a spectrum of causation and responsibility. It is not either/or.

"I dress this way therefore you have lustful thoughts. That's your problem."

"You dressed that way therefore I have lustful thoughts. That's your problem."

 If I believe that one of the reasons to dress modestly is to not provide a stumbling block for another, then I can make the decision that I will do my best not to be that stumbling block. Does that mean I "caused" another to lust after me? No, of course not. Does it mean I am willing to be a help to another? Yes. As a reasonable and caring person, I can conclude that I will take personal responsibility for my actions, realize that I have an impact on others who may be somewhere along the spectrum, recognize that I don't live in my personal bubble, and work for the good of my brothers and sisters. We are all in this together and we stand against the world. We need to help one another the best we possibly can. Please don't misinterpret that to mean I think women should be shamed into unhealthy behaviors for the sake of modesty. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

I can understand the confusion and emotional labor that BB is talking about of having to mitigate what might arouse men, especially when all men are different.  Some might be aroused by your feet, for example.  There are all sorts of weird fetishes out there.  So, how can a woman be accountable for her influence on others when it is impossible for the woman to read the minds of men and know exactly what might arouse them?  That is a fair question and one that does not have a good black and white answer.  Yet we all seem to agree that there should be at least some boundaries - some definite lines that should not be crossed or allowed at youth dances/activities etc.  The problem is that everyone will disagree on what that line should be, so that leaves youth in that difficult area of figuring out what is appropriate or not.  I think that is why the brethren made a dress code - to give people at least some guidance and to remove the burden of guessing to some degree. Even within those guidelines, there is still some ambiguity as they can be interpreted differently by different people.  So, leaders should allow some wiggle room.  I would like to hear what your suggestions are.   Is there absolutely no apparel that a youth could wear to a stake dance, for instance, that should not be allowed?  If you all agree that there should be at least some basic standards that a leader should use to judge the apparel of youth, what is it?  What are your ideas?  It is easy to pick apart the standards that our leaders have suggested, because there is no absolute right answer. It is much more difficult to suggest a replacement.  

I know that the general consensus is that we should teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves, yet when pressed, there also seems to be consensus that yes, there should be at least some basic standard of expectation.  So what are your suggestions?

Come to activities with clothes on....make sure it makes sense for the activity. 

the bold I feel is the crux of what keeps this cycle going in this thread. As I mentioned, I already mentioned my stance. Teach correct principles and let the govern themselves. And I meant it. I would make sure everyone knows what is generally expected (read the FTSoY pamphlet to them, encourage them to let their friends know who aren't members what that expectation is....and most importantly emphasize and teach them Why.) I liked CAboy's and a few other comments that talked about if there is a youth who clothing choices really seem to be pushing boundaries to discuss the principles with them and to have them ponder what would God expect from them. So I'm not going to keep rehashing the same thing past that summary. I really do not want us dictating our teens and I certainly don't want some form of enforcement. 

As for the burden of guessing, I actually don't think this is a good thing that leaders have "taken the burden" of guessing off of them. Not if we want children that can confidently stride through life with a testimony and purpose to what they're doing. And teen years is a very important time to teach autonomy and how to make good decisions. It's a time to stop telling them simply "don't do that" but to give them the first opportunities to make positive decisions in their own life. If we over manage and make guidelines absolute dictations, we're going to have a problem.  If they can't manage such a tiny burden in choice, their agency and connection to revelation will likely atrophy and be unable to handle very pertinent decisions and greater burdens to come. 

 

Quote

 

Here is what I feel strongly about.  I am basing my comments here on principles, not on gender differences, and not even necessarily on principles of morality.  The principles that I believe in are that we have a responsibility and accountability for the influence that we have on others.  We are accountable for our influence through words and actions on others.  I am accountable if my words influence others to also use filthy speech, even if that wasn't my intent.  That is not shifting responsibility away from them (but it is placing accountability on myself as a stewardship to the Lord.  I have been given stewardship to be an example to others ("set the to be a light to the world", "Be thou an example of the believers"), if my influence is darkness rather than light, than I am accountable for my misuse of that stewardship.  Lucifer was cursed for his influence on Eve because of his words.  Words are symbols, clothing are symbols, actions are symbols, they're are all forms of language for good or evil and we will be held accountable for the language we use and the influence that it can have on others.  

My purpose here is to establish the principle of accountability for our language and influence.  We can quibble about how others might be negatively influenced by us through no fault of our own - I agree there are grey areas, but I hope that we can all at least agree on the premise of accountability - that we should care how our dress affects others (in general, even if we disagree about specifics), that we should accountable for protecting others from harmful influence (in general, even if we disagree about specifics).

I hope that we can at least agree on these generalities at least.  When we understand these general principles, then we can understand why the general authorities have outlined the standards that have been given to our youth.  It is is task that I would not wish on anybody, but I can see how they tried to be principled.  They probably gave specific standards precisely because many youth were confused about what specifically is appropriate or not (as expressed by you guys above) and after speaking to young men about what affects them (generally speaking).  If you disagree with the line they have drawn, what would your line be? Defend it in principle. 

 

It is interesting that you mentioned that this isn't gendered and yet you state that the GA's likely came up with the standards based on the young men's needs. Not the young women. The young men. Obviously (I think) this is speculation on your part, but as it is a key common justification for modesty "standards," it doesn't actually read as simply principles. Very little of this thread and the last few pages can be separated from issues of gender. 

I'm not concerned with lines. I'm concerns with principles and making sure our youth are actually taught correct principles. It not about "helping the men out"....it's about keeping our minds focused most on the things of the lord. To not feed into our sense of vanity and materialistic spectacle. When one's endowed it is to maintain one's covenant with the lord. 

Quote

Here is what I feel strongly about.  I am basing my comments here on principles, not on gender differences, and not even necessarily on principles of morality.  The principles that I believe in are that we have a responsibility and accountability for the influence that we have on others.  We are accountable for our influence through words and actions on others.  I am accountable if my words influence others to also use filthy speech, even if that wasn't my intent.  That is not shifting responsibility away from them (but it is placing accountability on myself as a stewardship to the Lord.  I have been given stewardship to be an example to others ("set the to be a light to the world", "Be thou an example of the believers"), if my influence is darkness rather than light, than I am accountable for my misuse of that stewardship.  Lucifer was cursed for his influence on Eve because of his words.  Words are symbols, clothing are symbols, actions are symbols, they're are all forms of language for good or evil and we will be held accountable for the language we use and the influence that it can have on others.  

My purpose here is to establish the principle of accountability for our language and influence.  We can quibble about how others might be negatively influenced by us through no fault of our own - I agree there are grey areas, but I hope that we can all at least agree on the premise of accountability - that we should care how our dress affects others (in general, even if we disagree about specifics), that we should accountable for protecting others from harmful influence (in general, even if we disagree about specifics).

I hope that we can at least agree on these generalities at least.  When we understand these general principles, then we can understand why the general authorities have outlined the standards that have been given to our youth.  It is is task that I would not wish on anybody, but I can see how they tried to be principled.  They probably gave specific standards precisely because many youth were confused about what specifically is appropriate or not (as expressed by you guys above) and after speaking to young men about what affects them (generally speaking).  If you disagree with the line they have drawn, what would your line be? Defend it in principle. 

Since somehow language came up....I cuss in my sessions. I find that it helps them express their emotions that their suppressing. I purposely do it. There are always grey
"lines" in areas that are completely subjective and contextual. What's "appropriate" clothes wise is one of them. The "Standard" changes from culture to culture and era to era. You can't draw a universally okay outfit. There isn't one way to express modestly through style. 

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my response.  This is where I addressed your scenario:

To be even more direct, no, we cannot dress to the satisfaction of everyone on planet earth, and we cannot be held accountable for how our dress might affect everyone on planet earth.  Having said that, it is not hard to think of scenarios where we clearly would be held accountable four our influence on others through dress.  My point is simply to establish that general principle and not to argue about the specifics as we are not likely to agree.  What you are specifically held accountable for is between you and the Lord, not me.  I would ask myself, am I being genuine in my attempt to dress modestly as the Lord desires?  Am I rationalizing?  Would I feel comfortable wearing this in the presence of the Lord?  Am I being genuine in my responsibility to use clean language (attire is a form of language)?  Have I prayerfully considered the counsel of the prophets?  Am I integrously fulfilling my stewardship to the Lord? Would my language through dress be seen by the Lord as a beacon of light or darkness to others?

What I am trying to say is that accountability is between you and God - it doesn't matter what I think. There are no doubt very gray areas. Use your best judgment.  But again, due to the faulty judgment of some of our youth, our leaders are left with the burden to be stewards of them, to set boundaries, to protect all youth involved. Again, we all seem to agree that there should be at least some base standard or guidelines for leaders to base that judgment on - so where is the disconnect exactly?

If your principle can't stand up to an actual experience than the principle may have a major flaw inherently in it. if accountability is between me and God, then sans some concerns that are explicitly meant to harm, harass, or is so inappropriate no one would reasonably do it (the nudity extremes a few people keep harking to) then I'm not going to draw a limit. Their body is not my stewardship. That is something I abjectly believe and I'm not going to start now to try and enforce what I think they should do.

If you're at all interested, my judgment at the time with my shirt is that if I changed the way I dressed for his discomfort and sexual attractions, I would be enabling him to never learn to control his own thoughts and confront his problem with sexual behaviors and thoughts. It cemented my belief that I wouldn't change what I wore for another. 

As for young women, I wouldn't change my clothes. I hope that who I am and what i say teaches them to love themselves, love their bodies, and allow only God to define who they are. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 30, 2018 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think this division is caused by the fact that we cannot agree on a reason for modesty. It would go away if we had a consensus on why it is important.

I see it almost as a "ministry" issue in not causing a disruption of the spiritual "flow"- it's like yelling in someone's face "LOOK AT ME!"

And I think that goes for both sexes.  Obviously there are limits to how loud one speaks in the chapel etc, but it is kind of like that.  It is a lack of reverence for the peace of others

And yet when someone  makes noise in the chapel it is up to us to not let us affect us- true enough.

Like whenever someone is offended it takes two- the offender and the offendee. Neither one should be the "cause" of the problem with the other and yet it is a reality of life and we all need to learn to deal with it from both sides.   It is up to us not to be either  the offender or the offendee as much as possible.

Time for a break.

I have been wasting too much time hereabouts.  Have a good one!

Keep blowing up them mines! 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no need for modesty then?

There is no need for modesty in order that women won’t be harassed or assaulted, no. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please don't misinterpret that to mean I think women should be shamed into unhealthy behaviors for the sake of modesty. 

But that’s exactly what tying women’s modesty to men’s thoughts does. 

Look at the photo attached. Does the woman with exposed feet need to cover them in order to help out the men around her not have lustful thoughts? Why or why not? (Just so you know there is scientific research that supports the idea that feet are one of men’s biggest sexual cues)  

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But that’s exactly what tying women’s modesty to men’s thoughts does. 

Look at the photo attached. Does the woman with exposed feet need to cover them in order to help out the men around her not have lustful thoughts? Why or why not? (Just so you know there is scientific research that supports the idea that feet are one of men’s biggest sexual cues)  

 

That may be what they and lots of other men are doing, but that would be wrong. We should all try to be better than this. I take from this that it is a universal problem. We can work together to solve it to the best we can within our sphere of influence  

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

That may be what they and lots of other men are doing, but that would be wrong. We should all try to be better than this. 

 

Does the woman with the exposed feet need to cover them to help the men around her avoid sexual thoughts? Why or why not? Keep in mind, scientific research has shown that feet are one of the primary sexual cues for men. 

[Bernard Gui]

 

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Does the woman with the exposed feet need to cover them to help the men around her avoid sexual thoughts? Why or why not? Keep in mind, scientific research has shown that feet are one of the primary sexual cues for men. 

I have no way to control what those men are thinking. Do you? Just by looking at the picture, I can’t know what they are thinking. I think science would back me up on that. I can only be responsible for my thoughts. I am resolved to keep my part of the bargain and encourage my sons and my Church brethren to do the same.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

I have no way to control what those men are thinking. Do you? Just by looking at the picture, I can’t know what they are thinking. I think science would back me up on that. I can only be responsible for my thoughts. I am resolved to keep my part of the bargain and encourage my sons and my Church brethren to do the same.

I’m not asking what the men are thinking. Im not asking about your responsibility. I’m asking about a women’s responsibility to dress modestly to help men avoid sexual thoughts. It’s not a difficult question.